DNA Gathering

In some states, the police are allowed to gather DNA samples upon making an arrest-even before the person is actually charged (let alone convicted). As might be guessed, this has raised concerns from those who are concerned about privacy issues. However, there are those who regard the collection of DNA as a good idea and one that can help ensure that the guilty are punished and the innocent are set free.

One argument in favor of allowing the police to take DNA samples upon arresting a person is that the DNA information can be used in whatever investigation that might follow. Of course, the obvious counter to this is that the sample need not be taken upon arrest to be used in the investigation or trial. That is, the police can wait until the person is actually charged with a crime that legitimately involves a need for DNA evidence.

Another argument in favor of allowing the police to take DNA samples upon arresting a person is that this adds to the database of DNA. Even if the person arrested is not charged or found to be innocent, the DNA information will remain and it might prove useful in a later investigation. Not surprisingly, this same argument is used to argue in favor of mandating that everyone be included in the DNA database. Such a national DNA registry would be a great boon to police. For example, a person picked up for a traffic violation could be checked against the database and it could be found that he is a wanted serial rapist. Without the DNA information, the serial rapist would have been free to continue his crimes.

As might be imagined, the arguments in favor of such DNA sampling and database creation are countered with arguments against them.

One of the main arguments against taking DNA samples from a person who has been merely arrested is based on the claim that the police need a proper warrant to obtain evidence. Just as an officer cannot go through my computer or house without a warrant, she cannot go through my DNA. The main counter to this is that the police do take fingerprints and this practice is on a solid legal foundation. The debate then becomes one of analogy: is DNA more like fingerprints or more like the content of a person’s house or computer? The answer to this depends a great deal on the sort of data gained from the DNA sample.

If the DNA sampling merely provided data comparable to that provided by fingerprints (that is, just identifying the person), then a fairly solid case can be made that DNA sampling of this sort would be just as legally solid as fingerprinting. However, if the DNA sampling provides more data, then it would seem to be more analogous to going through a person’s home and thus simply grabbing a DNA sample upon an arrest would seem to be on par with going though a person’s house just because she had been arrested.

Obviously enough, a DNA sample does potentially provide a vast amount of information about a person. However, the amount of information revealed would depend on the sort of testing used on the DNA. Thus, a key part of the matter would focus on how the DNA was used (and what was done with the actual samples).

Another argument against DNA sampling is the potential for the misuse of the information gathered. Obviously, there is the concern that the information revealed by the DNA will be misused by the police. For example, DNA samples are now used to make family matches and innocent relatives of criminals can find themselves targeted by the police. As as another example, DNA identifications are not as reliable as people generally believe. This raises the concern that too much reliance will be placed on such evidence. For folks who worry about the government having a registry of firearms, the idea of collecting such DNA information should be utterly terrifying. There is also the concern that the data will be misused by those outside of the police forces. That is, that the data will become available to other parts of the government and perhaps even those in the private sector. For example, the DNA data gathered by the police could become available to insurance companies.

The gathering of DNA evidence is now fairly common and it continues to grow more common. One reason for this is that the companies that profit from DNA testing have effective lobbies that work rather hard to ensure that there will be a large market for their products. This, like the for-profit prisons, also raises concerns. After all, when such profits are involved, the public good is often ignored.

In the technological society efficiency drives everything. A massive database of DNA will keep us safer. A massive database of intercepted data content will keep us safer. But most of all: massive databases allow for greater efficiency.

Here’s a few problems I have, which you didn’t mention:

DNA and fingerprints evidence and matching require expert testimony, provided by the prosecution, in court. Contrary interpretations of both, by the defense, may be forbidden by the court.

DNA can be planted at a crime scene in order to frame an innocent person for a crime (add to this, the above).

DNA evidence requires persons to testify against themselves. We are our bodies.

The most disturbing to me is the need for expert testimony to verify DNA evidence in court. As a prosecutor, all I need to is have an FBI expert go to a print shop, have a poster printed with lots of DNA lines on it, have him produce it in court, say it implicates the defendant, present the experts credential, petition the court to disallow defense expert testimony, and I win my case: all with no real evidence. The whole thing could be fabricated and the jury would have no way of knowing. The prosecution doesn’t even need the DNA, just a convincing graphic and an expert to say it’s real.

DNA and fingerprints evidence and matching require expert testimony, provided by the prosecution, in court. Contrary interpretations of both, by the defense, may be forbidden by the court.

OK, something I know far more about than you do. And of course this plays into your conspiricy oriented thinking, so I know I’m wasting my time with you, but for the edification of others….There are a number of cranks out there who make money refuting the science of fingerprint technology. I’ve worked the technology, I’ve read the arguments. They are kernals of fact exploded into reams of incorrect inferences, fallacious thinking, etc. that is designed to bamboozle the layperson on the jury. This is why some defense tactics are forbidden. Contrary testimony by experts based on the quality of the latent print, to my knowledge, is permitted.

DNA evidence requires persons to testify against themselves. We are our bodies.

This is an argument that ignores the reasoning for why the 5th amendment exists in the first place. Plus it would apply to fingerprints as well as DNA. But that’s a whole other discussion. Basically, it does not violate the 5th amendment to use what a person has left outside his/her body against them. If someone tells a third party that they intend to kill someone, that conversation is admissible.

The rest of this argument is equally applicable to fingerprints. Should they not be admissible?

One reason for this is that the companies that profit from DNA testing have effective lobbies that work rather hard to ensure that there will be a large market for their products

Again, Mike with his fear of someone making money overriding common sense. DNA identificaiton is in some ways a different animal from figerprinting and in other ways not so much. The question addressed by the courts recently had more to do with whether or not it was legal to do what is known as a latent search, which is far less likely to come up with a match when done with fingerprints than with DNA. There’s a whole world of interesting philosophical questions involved here, but Mike doesn’t see them as he is blinded by his political bias and hubris. Note also that DNA could be gathered latently rather than overtly via a swab. The swab just makes the process much easier.

TJ, would you take away from government the ability of its various agencies the ability to perform searches of crime databases using fingerprints taken from an arrest? If say, that Cleveland guy who held those girls for over a decade had left a latent print at the scene of one of the abductions and was then fingerprinted weeks/months/years later for some crime that there was not enough evidence to convict him for, should the police be prohibited from searching that database?

“If man–if each one of us–abdicates his responsibilities with regard to values; if each one of us limits himself to leading a trivial existence in a technological civilization, with greater adaptation and increasing success as his sole objectives; if we do not even consider the possibility of making a stand against these determinants, then everything will happen as I have described it, and the determinates will be transformed into inevitabilities.” ― Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society

“In the midst of increasing mechanization and technological organization, propaganda is simply the means used to prevent these things from being felt as too oppressive and to persuade man to submit with good grace. When man will be fully adapted to this technological society, when he will end by obeying with enthusiasm, convinced of the excellence of what he is forced to do, the constraint of the organization will no longer be felt by him; the truth is, it will no longer be a constraint, and the police will have nothing to do. The civic and technological good will and the enthusiasm for the right social myths — both created by propaganda — will finally have solved the problem of man.” ~ Jaques Ellul, “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes”

“Again I want to emphasize that the study of propaganda must be conducted within the context of a technological society. Propaganda is called upon to solve problems created by technology, to play on maladjustments, and to integrate the individual into a technological world.” ― Jacques Ellul, “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes”

I was at a conference last week at which several Europeans were present. Even they have noticed that we are not particularly free any more. One Italian guy asked me why there are so many rules in America. I explained to them that we are really to the left of every government in Europe.

OTOH, Italians have problems keeping their buildings standing and dams from collapsing, etc. The Romans built stuff that has lasted, and in many cases was still functional, for 2000 years. Accounting for the technolgy of the times vs. how much easier it is to build things today I doubt much of modern Italy can live up to that reputation. Probably be overrun by the Muzzies before long anyway. Witness how many Italian women lined up to be drooled on by Khadaffi. They could stand to implement a few more rules.

Turns out this story was big news in Germany, and I had missed it completely:

(CNN) — A Kentucky mother stepped outside of her home just for a few minutes, but it was long enough for her 5-year-old son to accidentally shoot and kill his 2-year-old sister with the .22-caliber rifle he got for his birthday, state officials said.

The shooting that took the life of Caroline Sparks in southern Kentucky has been ruled an accident, Kentucky State Police Trooper Billy Gregory said.

“It’s just one of those nightmares,” he said, “a quick thing that happens when you turn your back.”

Young children in the area are often introduced to guns at an early age, Gregory said.

And what about fingerprints? What about my medical records in my doctor’s office? What about my financial records the IRS has? Do I trust the gov’t over anyone else? Sometimes, most times not. See my other post above. What are your specific concerns, data being hacked? 5th amendment issues? What if, after a DNA search is done and nothing comes up, the DNA must be destroyed and any records purged? We do that with fingerprints to some extent. So many issues here, but no sane, critical thinking being done to weigh the positives against the negatives.

But now you’re venturing into the safe Mikey land of non-specifics. Fun to think there but the real world has to operate on realistic rules. Is using fingerprints from an arrest an indiscriminate act of snooping? The arrestee might be innocent, or might not, but it’s not like the police are stopping people indiscriminately and taking fingerprint samples. How is this different than DNA? I mean there are numerous ways it is different but for identification purposes, not so much.

Not following you. How is it indiscriminate? An arrest means there was probable cause to detain. Don’t understand what the chemicals in a bottle of water have to do with finger prints? An unreasonable arrest is a different matter and in itself lies the intrusion into one’s liberty, not the prints themselves.

I understand that. But that’s a problem with arrest powers, not with the application of fingerprint, or other ID, technology. A cop will also find himself in hot water for doing so, eventually. Where is the intrusion onto other people’s rights by the technology itself? See my hypothetical above to you in regard to the Cleveland kidnapper.

And getting back to Big Brother. In 1984, IIRC, Big Brother is able to get away with the things he does because he has seized control of the language. “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

Trying to find more on this subject, but ran out of time. In a completely different context, consider this advise from Orwell on how TO write:
i.Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
ii.Never use a long word where a short one will do.
iii.If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
iv.Never use the passive where you can use the active.
v.Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
vi.Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

But if you wanna discuss news in Germany…
The University of Leipzig has voted to adopt the feminine version of the word for ‘professor’ as its default. In German, professorin refers to a female professor while professor is the male equivalent. Under the new measures, written documents will use the term Professorinnen when referring to professors in general. A footnote is to explain that male professors are also included in the description. Physics professor Dr Josef Käs suggested the change as a joke because he was becoming weary of extended discussions about gendered language. To his surprise, the university board voted in favour of the idea.

TJ, would you take away from government the ability of its various agencies the ability to perform searches of crime databases using fingerprints taken from an arrest? If say, that Cleveland guy who held those girls for over a decade had left a latent print at the scene of one of the abductions and was then fingerprinted weeks/months/years later for some crime that there was not enough evidence to convict him for, should the police be prohibited from searching that database?

I don’t have a problem with keeping a database of known criminals. These people have broken the law, and statistically are likely to break the law again.

What I object to is the random collection of information on innocent people. If you are a person who has never broken the law there is no reason for your local police department to have a dossier with your name on it.

Databases on innocent people are not kept indefinitely. After some period of time, and I forget what the triggers are but there are several based on numerous factors, arrest records are purged. Even juvenile and other records are purged. There are numerous other reasons, but innocent people are not routinely tracked, legally anyway, by the feds.

So back to the origin of this issue, DNA, are you OK with treating DNA like fingerprints, at least in regard to the context of arrests and criminal searches? Are you OK with running fingerprints from an arrest through a criminal database to verify identity and check for outstanding warrants, etc?

This is another database of innocent peoples, just like the NSA’s database. It’s more efficient this way. The Bill of Rights be damned. Our government is treasonous. This is exactly why the Fourth Amendment was written. There are no reasons or excuses for the government. The people running it are criminals.

“So back to the origin of this issue, DNA, are you OK with treating DNA like fingerprints, at least in regard to the context of arrests and criminal searches? Are you OK with running fingerprints from an arrest through a criminal database to verify identity and check for outstanding warrants, etc?”

So the idea is to arrest somebody first, and then look through the databases to see if maybe he committed a crime?

Yes. But legally the cops need to have a reason to make the arrest. I’m no expert on that end of law enforcement, but I am a bit familiar with what is involved. Magus, and hope he’s keeping his head down over there, could ‘splain those details much better than I could. Putting the bad-cop scenario aside for now, do you see anything wrong with running prints from an arrest through a database? Assuming that you don’t hold the person any longer than it takes to determine if/what to charge them with. Meaning that once they are cleared for the reason of the arrest, the police do not hold them any longer whilst waiting for the search to complete. Though, there are some other interesting issues we could get into involving searches of prints from unsolved crime scenes, which today take prohibitively long to perform but could one day be done in the time it now takes to process and identification confirmation.

Heard this before and while 3-a-day sounds like BS to me, I wouldn’t doubt 3 a month. And yes, I agree and have been saying for years that we are legislating ourselves into anarchy. But that is a different issue than using DNA, or fingerprints, for identification. But these sort of problems go beyond the cop-on-the-beat scenarios that identification technology addresses. This very serious problem of government making so many things illegal that they can arrest you for failing to pick up your dog’s poop is not a product of trying to solve the real common crimes for which ID technology is overwhelmeingly applied.

Again, I wish M was here to discuss the practicality of on-the-beat police work. I do not see where prohibiting law enforcement from using DNA or fingerprint technology would affect this 3-a-day problem in any meaningful sense.

There is also the flip side where the defense can prove innocence of a convicted felon using DNA and the prosecutor won’t go along.

Many prosecutors are out of control as well.

I guess I am one of the people Peggy Noonan is writing about:

I feel that almost everyone who talks about America for a living—politicians and journalists and even historians—is missing a huge and essential story: that too many things are happening that are making a lot of Americans feel a new distance from, a frayed affiliation with, the country they have loved for half a century and more, the country they loved without every having to think about it, so natural was it. This isn’t the kind of thing that can be quantified in polls—it’s barely the kind of thing people admit to themselves. But talk to older Americans—they feel they barely know this country anymore. In governance its crucial to stay within parameters, it’s important not to strain ties, push too far, be extreme. And if you think this does not carry implications for down the road, for our healthy continuance as a nation, you are mistaken. Love keeps great nations going.

Some of the reaction to the NSA story is said to be generational. The young are said not to fear losing privacy, because they never knew it. The middle-aged, who grew up in peace and have families, want safety first, whatever it takes, even excess. Lately for wisdom I’ve been looking to the old. Go to somebody who’s 75 and ask, “So if it turns out the U.S. government is really spying on American citizens and tracking everything they do, is that OK with you?” They’ll likely say no, that’s not what we do in America.

But in the context of critical thinking, re “So if it turns out the U.S. government is really spying on American citizens and tracking everything they do, is that OK with you?” …The number of people who truly believe this is completely possible make for a tempting, tasty meal for the mountebanks and charlatans that make up the political world. There is no way they can monitor every thing ever person does. The greater threat to your privacy is from the technical sphere, but the citizen with both an axe to grind and the connections to exploit those 3-felony-a-day opportunities. 1984 was less about technology than about working the humans.

I must be old-we should not be engaged in top secret police-state style data collection. I’ll need to provide a full argument, but that sort of thing seems to be inconsistent with our core professed values, such as privacy rights.

I am fine with probable cause investigations-that is rather a necessity for police and security work. But broad scooping of private data by the state smells of the road to tyranny.

The Internal Revenue Service is collecting a lot more than taxes this year — it’s also acquiring a huge volume of personal information on taxpayers’ digital activities, from eBay auctions to Facebook posts and, for the first time ever, credit card and e-payment transaction records, as it expands its search for tax cheats to places it’s never gone before.

The IRS, under heavy pressure to help Washington out of its budget quagmire by chasing down an estimated $300 billion in revenue lost to evasions and errors each year, will start using “robo-audits” of tax forms and third-party data the IRS hopes will help close this so-called “tax gap.” But the agency reveals little about how it will employ its vast, new network scanning powers.

Tax lawyers and watchdogs are concerned about the sweeping changes being implemented with little public discussion or clear guidelines, and Congressional staff sources say the IRS use of “big data” will be a key issue when the next IRS chief comes to the Senate for approval. Acting commissioner Steven T. Miller replaced Douglas Shulman last November.

You lay the groundwork for the tyrant of tomorrow. They roll, as they always do, on the weakness of the minds of their subjects. The technology is nothing but a tool. Soft-headed sophistry is the enemy to watch. Or am I simply being paranoid?

Both altruism and empathy have rightly received an extraordinary amount of research attention. This focus has permitted better characterization of these qualities and how they might have evolved. However, it has also served to reify their value without realistic consideration about when those qualities contain the potential for significant harm.

Part of the reason that pathologies of altruism have not been studied extensively or integrated into the public discourse appears to be fear that such knowledge might be used to discount the importance of altruism. Indeed, there has been a long history in science of avoiding paradigm-shifting approaches, such as Darwinian evolution and acknowledgment of the influence of biological factors on personality, arising in part from fears that such knowledge somehow would diminish human altruistic motivations. Such fears always have proven unfounded. However, these doubts have minimized scientists’ ability to see the widespread, vitally important nature of pathologies of altruism. As psychologist Jonathan Haidt notes, “Morality binds and blinds.”

I have often regarded excessively polite drivers as pathological altruists. When you have the right of way you should take it–by being “polite” you are likely to cause an accident.

When you have the right of way you should take it–by being “polite” you are likely to cause an accident.
Bingo. In a more comprehensive scope, charity should always be given with the understanding by the receiver that he is in debt to his benefactor. Not necessarily materially, but morally.

More evidence that an arrest means nothing and that one should not lose rights because of it.

When 8th grade Jared Marcum got dressed for school on Thursday he says he had no idea that his pro-Second Amendment shirt would initiate what he calls a fight over his First Amendment rights.

“I never thought it would go this far because honestly I don’t see a problem with this, there shouldn’t be a problem with this,” Jared said.

It was the image of a gun printed on Jared’s t-shirt that sparked a dispute between a Logan Middle School teacher and Jared, that ended with Jared suspended, arrested and facing two charges, obstruction and disturbing the education process, on his otherwise spotless record.

Jared’s father Allen Lardieri says he’s angry he had to rush from work to pick his son up from jail over something he says was blown way out of proportion.

“I don’t’ see how anybody would have an issue with a hunting rifle and NRA put on a t-shirt, especially when policy doesn’t forbid it,” Lardieri said.

The Logan County School District’s dress code policy prohibits clothing that displays profanity, violence, discriminatory messages and more but nowhere in the document does it say anything about gun images.

“He did not violate any school policy,” Lardieri reiterates. “He did not become aggressive.”

Now, Lardieri says he’s ready to fight until the situation is made right.

“I will go to the ends of the earth, I will call people, I will write letters, I will do everything in the legal realm to make sure this does not happen again,” Lardieri said.

Logan City Police did confirm that Jared had been arrested and charged today.

Yeah, saw that. Color me indifferent. When my parents sent me off to school I wasn’t allowed to wear t-shirts with messages on them unless it was some sort of rally day or such. Even our team shirts we wore on meet days had a collar. And the father’s feigned shock of “I don’t see how anybody would have an issue…” reminds me of some of Mike’s naïve statements. I support the 2nd and 1st amendments, but not interested in taking that beach/hill. It just smells of victimization shopping.

This is what kills any conservative political momentum. I used to blame the media for seeking out these stories when their boys are on the ropes, but to some extent conservatives are adamant about shooting themselves in the foot. Especially lately. Not long after the scandals mount, the conservative blogs start to light up with abortion chatter, anti-gay nonsense, and extreme NRA sloganeering.

But also to be clear, that he was arrested is absolutely ridiculous and a blatant violation of his rights. Suspended, sent home, told he must change his shirt, etc., while something with which I would also disagree, should be as far as something like this should ever go. Unless, of course, he became violent or broke some sort of law in the process. But that doesn’t appear to be the case here.

Suspended and arrested after refusing to change his NRA shirt. Today, 14-year-old Jared Marcum appeared before a judge and was officially charged with obstructing an officer.

A $500 fine and up to a year in jail, that’s the penalty that Jared could face, now that a judge has allowed the prosecution to move forward with it’s obstructing an officer charge against him.

“Me, I’m more of a fighter and so is Jared and eventually we’re going to get through this,” Jared’s father Allen Lardieri said. “I don’t think it should have ever gotten this far.”

The Logan County Police Department initially claimed that the at-the-time 8th grade Logan Middle School student was arrested for disturbing the education process, obstructing an officer and Lardieri says that officers even went as far as threatening to charge Jared with making terroristic threats.

Prosecuting attorney Michael White refused to respond to any questions, as did Logan Police.

We obtained official court documents from both sides of this case. On one hand, the arresting officer from the Logan City Police Department, James Adkins, claims that when Jared refused to stop talking, that hindered his ability to do his job, hence, the obstruction charge. On the other side, Ben White points out that nowhere in the arresting officer’s petition, does it mention Jared ever making any threats or acting in a violent manner.

“Every aspect of this is just totally wrong,” Lardieri said. “He has no background of anything criminal, up until now and it just seems like nobody wants to admit they’re wrong.”

Ben White says he will continue working to have the charges against Jared dismissed. If that doesn’t happen in the coming weeks, Jared will be back in court on July 11th.

As I said, putting the kid in jail, making this a police matter, is ridiculous…so I’ll add stupid, crazy, delusional, foolish, imbecilic, etc. do you get my point? The problem is the law, not the enforcement of such. I don’t see the connection between using DNA as a means of identification having any relevance here. A police force having the power to make an arrest is necessary for a functional legal system. Are you familiar with the adage, don’t cut off your nose to spite your face?

The only thing worse than stepping in dog poop is knowing there’s pretty much no way to track down the guilty pet owner.

That’s where PooPrints comes in. The service, created by BioPet Vet Lab in Tennessee, can be purchased by entire housing complexes or housing developments that are willing to make pet DNA swabbing a requirement for residents….

I doubt that the people who won WWII would have been very concerned about NSA “snooping”. Especially the extremely limited scope and restrictions that have now been revealed. Fighting fascism required perspective and a realistic understanding of the world they were living in.

You gonna address Mikey’s bs reply on profits? I am curious, do you still think he’s socialist light?

Quite so-the NSA is gathering “mega” data while claiming that they only look at the meta data without a specific legal authorization to dig deeper. To use an analogy, this would be like the state having someone go through your house and belongings while promising that the person will only make a general report about your stuff, unless he gets an authorization to talk about everything he pawed through.

One of my worries is that the data is there and the barrier to getting into it is very low-thus making abuse easy. Also, I am not a big fan of mass snooping. Plus, you know, the constitution.

The constitution… how quaint! :) The SCOTUS uses the reader response hermeneutic to interpret that. The NSA’s data gathering/mining is not unlike King George’s troops rummaging through the colonist’s persons and papers in order to ferret-out those who might be against the crown. And hey, “If you’re not doing anything wrong”, the loyalists said, “then you don’t have anything to worry about”. We live in a post (or a pre) constitutional America. And don’t forget the DNA and driver license mug shot photo facial recognition databases!

There is nothing that the agent stated here that said that a warrant did not need to be part of the process. Surely a warrant will be provided for an ongoing criminal investigation. Yes, they are storing the data, though as you (hopefully) and I both know it is in an organizations’ best interest to purge data it does not need to perform its mission.

As for Mike’s analogy, it’s BS.

To use an analogy, this would be like the state having someone go through your house and belongings while promising that the person will only make a general report about your stuff, unless he gets an authorization to talk about everything he pawed through.

It’s not like that at all. No one is intruding into your personal space. And implicit in Mike’s analogy the acting agent would be consuming and processing all that he sees. Not surrendering my previous position, but to make Mike’s analogy a little clearer, it would be as if you were SUSPECTED of a crime and the FBI went through your garbage. And even then it would be limited to doing so with tunnel vision, or like looking through a paper roller tube.

As for Mike’s constitution, it never seems to include people’s rights to property nor the profits. The constitution is simply a tool for Mike to get what he wants. If he is so concerned he could run one of his rants directed this time at his BFF Barry.

Here’s some government intrusion that ticked me off at 2 AM last night. Where’s the outrage at the gift controlling my phone? Why did this need to be shoved down my throat rather than just giving me the option? The thinking of people who make such decisions is scary.

Now, AT&T is pushing out an update that enables governmental and Amber alerts on iPhone 4S and 5 phones runing iOS 6.1 or later. When the update comes, you’ll see a notification on your iPhone’s screen that reads:

Carrier Settings Updated
New settings required for your device have been installed.

Your only option is an OK button – this is not an update you can decline.

I live in the UK, which doesn’t worry about trivial little matters, like whether taking somebody ‘s DNA will hurt their feels or violates some abject moral code. Here, when you are arrested for anything, your DNA and prints are taken. You can argue all you want; it won’t make a difference, as no one cares- the State comes above the whinings of random subjects.
There have been many cases where people have been arrested for some crime they did not commit, and when their DNA is taken, it has been found to be the same DNA of a criminalwanted for a serious crime. Or they have gone on to commit a crime after being released. The database of DNA has solved crimes. If I had my way, not only would the presence of surveillance cameras increase, though also everybody would be forced to submit to a DNA test and sample, so the State, in its wisdom, can solve any crime or exonerate you for any crime, of which you may be a suspect.

It must be awful to live in America, where the tyranny of liberty subjugates people to a land of crime and decadence.

You really have to appreciate the Virtues of the State when you compare European countries, which don’t concern themselves with negative liberty, in contrast to the decaying land of America, unfree and enchained through its pathological obsession with freedom and individualism, and, of course who could forget this, capitalism and military grade weaponry?

And to some extent 1814 when we took a little trip along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip’.. Not to mention a playing a few somewhat more recent requests. You know, over there, over there? Sprechen sie deutsch?